Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and Raj Kishore Prasad JJ.
Chotanagpur Banking Association, Ltd.And Ors.
Versus
Govt.Of India
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 645 of 1956 ; 701 of 1956 ; 775 of 1956 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 22, 1957
BIHAR LAND ENCROACHMENT ACT, 1950 - Sec.2(ii)(e) - Acquisition of land under Defence of India Rules - Whether amounts to transfer - Interpretation of 'or otherwise' - Public property - Vesting of title in Government - Compensation - Assessment and penalty.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were in unauthorized occupation of certain plots belonging to the Government of India, were proceeded against under the Bihar Land Encroachment Act, 1950. The Deputy Commissioner held that the disputed lands were acquired property of the Government of India and ordered the petitioners to be evicted and to pay assessment and penalty. The Commissioner, on appeal, modified the order by reducing the penalty and limiting the assessment to two years. The petitioners filed applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the impugned orders.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the acquisition of land under Rule 75A(3) of the Defence of India Rules amounted to a statutory transfer and was covered by the definition of 'public property' under Sec.2(ii)(e) of the Bihar Land Encroachment Act, 1950. The Court further held that the title to the acquired land vested absolutely in the Government and no title was left in the owner after the acquisition. The Court also held that compensation was payable for the acquired land under Sec.19 of the Defence of India Act, 1939, and that the assessment and penalty imposed under the Bihar Land Encroachment Act were not open to challenge on the ground of hardship.
Issues: 1. Whether the acquisition of land under the Defence of India Rules amounted to a transfer within the meaning of Sec.2(ii)(e) of the Bihar Land Encroachment Act, 1950? 2. Whether the title to the acquired land vested absolutely in the Government or reverted to the owner after the expiry of the Defence of India Rules? 3. Whether compensation was payable for the acquired land? 4. Whether the assessment and penalty imposed under the Bihar Land Encroachment Act were open to challenge on the ground of hardship?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the acquisition of land under Rule 75A(3) of the Defence of India Rules amounted to a statutory transfer and was covered by the definition of 'public property' under Sec.2(ii)(e) of the Bihar Land Encroachment Act, 1950. The Court relied on the ejusdem generis rule of construction and held that the general words 'or otherwise' in Sec.2(ii)(e) were intended to cover all possible cases of transfers, including statutory transfers. 2. The Court held that the title to the acquired land vested absolutely in the Government and no title was left in the owner after the acquisition. The Court relied on the provisions of Rule 75A(3) of the Defence of India Rules, which stated that the property acquired under the rule shall vest in Government free from any encumbrances. 3. The Court held that compensation was payable for the acquired land under Sec.19 of the Defence of India Act, 1939. The Court relied on the provisions of Sec.19(1)(e) of the Act, which required the arbitrator to have regard to the provisions of Sec.23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in determining the amount of compensation. 4. The Court held that the assessment and penalty imposed under the Bihar Land Encroachment Act were not open to challenge on the ground of hardship. The Court held that the Act gave jurisdiction to the Deputy Commissioner or other authorities to make assessment and impose penalty, and that the orders passed by these authorities were not open to challenge on the ground of hardship.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitioners' applications with costs.
Raj Kishore Prasad, J.
1. As these three cases are interconnected, and, common questions of law arise in all of them, they have been heard together.
2. In each of these cases, the petitioner, or petitioners seek an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari to call up and quash the proceedings started against him or them under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Bihar Land Encroachment Act, 1950, (Bihar Act XXXI of 1950) for unauthorised occupation ol certain plots, which belonged to the Government of India, one of the opposite party to these applications, and are meant for the purpose of the airfield at Ranchi,
3. They have further asked to quash the order dated 4-8-1933, of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, (Annexure A), the order dated 2-3-1956, of the Commissioner, Chota Nagpur Division, (Annexure B), and the order dated 29-6-1956, of the Board of Revenue (Annexure C) to the applications of the petitioners.
4. The petitioner in Case No. 775 has further prayed for a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining opposite party 1, who is the Government of India through the Aerodrome Officer, Ranchi; opposite party 2, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and, opposite party 3, the Commissioner, Chota Nagpur Division, Ranchi, from interfering with the possession of opposite party 4 to 6. Opposite party 4 is petitioner in Case 645 and opposite parties 5 and 6 are petitioners in Case 701.
5. The Government of India through the Aerodrome Officer, Ranchi, opposite party, started a proceeding before the Deputy Commissioner. Ranchi. under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Bihar Land Encroachment Act, 1950 , against the petitioners of all the three cases, for unauthorised occupation of certain plots, which, according to it were the property of the Government of India and were meant for the air-field at Ranchi having been acquired for that purpose under the Defence of India Rules during the years 1939 to 1944.
6. The Deputy Commissioner, opposite party, held that the disputed lands were the acquired property or the Government of India, and, therefore, all the petitioners before this Court were liable to be summarily ejected and were also liable to pay assessment under Sec.3 and additional assessment by way of penalty under Sec. 4 of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner, accordingly, on 4-8-1953. passed an order evicting the petitioners and directing them to pay the assessment for three years under Sec.3 of the Act and further to pay a penalty equal to ten times the annual assessment under Sec. 4 of the Act.
7. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners of Cases 645 and 701 appealed to the Commissioner, Chota Nagpur Division, opposite party, who heard both the appeals together and by an order dated 2-3-1956, modified the order of the Deputy Commissioner by direction that the penalty will be imposed at three times the annual assessment and that the assessment be made for two years only, and in other respects he confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner.
8. Against the order of the Commissioner, three applications in revision were made to the Board of Revenue by the three sets of the petitioners before this Court, and, all the three revisional applications were heard together by the Member, Board ol Revenue, who on 29-6-1956, after hearing the parties, did not think fit to admit them.
9. Against the above mentioned orders, the three sets of petitioners filed applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution before the High Court on which a rule in each of the three cases was issued by this Court against the aforesaid opposite party to show cause why the impugned orders, just mentioned, should not be quashed. Cause has been shown by Mr. Ray Paras Nath, Government Pleader, on behalf of opposite party.
10. In case 775, the case of the petitioner, Chotanagpur Banking Assocation, is that it owned 453 acres of land in one block in villages Hinoo, Hundru, Hetu and Kalyanpur, under Sadar Thana at Ranchi. Government acquired in all 254.70 acres o
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
